Author:
Xpltivdletd (ello fragging L)
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 15:01:12 10/27/02 Sun
Author Host/IP: 65.194.128.24
In reply to:
The Veeckster
's message, "Uh, as always BUD! WTF ARE YEW tALKIN ABOUT?" on 23:17:09 10/22/02 Tue
I'll resist the temptation to ask who-all believes "E Pluribus Unum" means exactly the same thing as "In Loco Parentis." But "...it only makes good sense" to report the tempation.
I actually agree that undersage smokin is a bad idea--especially in an extra-dry year. Once that sage gets burnin it can be a real {dog of the Victim Gender} to extinguish. Responsible smokers should find less flammable concealment for their disobedience to Holy Mother Govt!
OTOH my reason for the rant to which you reply was that I've been-there--done-that. My 20 years in the Canoe Club were 1969..'89. There was no way to bust you for anything but drinking in '69--except catching you in the act. Then came the tinkle-test for "drugs" in the 1980s. So you know you were smoking and today it's everyone whose name begins with a 'V' (just a for-instance). No Problem--they hand you the little cup and tell you bring it back at least half full. You walk into the potty-room and sure enough, somebody peed and didn't flush. Nobody's there to see, so your problem's just solved itself--right?
Well, friends, I served with someone who thought so. Dang his bad luck--whoever had peed and not flushed was doing cocaine! So my shipmate had to choose between admitting he handed-in a cup if whizz that was not his, 'cause he'd smoked some wacky-tobacky--and taking a fall for cocaine. Coke would have bounced him right out of the Navy with a very bad discharge. Weed and faking a tinkle-test just might let him pay the fines, stand by for being treated like a Republican, and at least let him eventually leave the Service with an acceptable discharge. So he 'fessed-up and after daily tinkle-tests for a while--then weekly--they believed him and sent him to Rehab. Still with me? Good.
My shipmate's plan must have been tried *a lot.* 'Cause suddenly in the last ½ of the 80s the law was changed--somebody had to WATCH ya whizz in that cup. You don't hafta take my word on that. I typewrant it here, knowing anyone can check it out if in doubt. "Not on my watch! Not on my ship! Not on my shoe--please!"
It's a little more invasive than a strip-search. Before that can be defended under "In Loco Parentis," kindly answer this:
Where you live--would a parent DARE strip-search her-or-his own child, before sending same to school? Or would that take One Muy Loco Parent (even if the GovSchool claims the authority to strip-search)..? RKBA! Regards, all.
>cALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLMMMM DOWN BUD! undersage
>smokin is BAD!! In Loco Parentis, ya dig?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 
Re: Uh, as always, Tks4 a timely response...
